Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Karti P. Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/ 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) Nalini Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233 / 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) P.Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/ 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years- Agricultural income –Change of opinion- Objection was disposed without speaking order-No failure to disclose material facts -Notice for reassessment only for the relevant year and there were hundreds of coffee growers whose income were also exempted, reopening notice issued only against assessee during relevant assessment year was unjustified .[ S.10(1), 148 ]

Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2018) 402 ITR 177 (Guj) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Reopening of assessment on the ground that activities of assessee is not eligible for deduction was held to be change of opinion, hence reopening was held to be not valid [ S.80IB(8A), 148 ]

Honda Motor Co. Ltd. v. ADCIT ( 2018) 164 DTR 97/ 301 CTR 601/255 Taxman 72 (SC) Editorial: Review petition of revenue is dismissed ACIT v. Honda Motor Co. Ltd ( 2019) 265 Taxman 542/ 311 CTR 259/ 183 DTR 24 (SC) / Order in Principal Officer , LG.Electronics Inc v. Asstt. DIT( IT) ( 2014) 271 CTR 663/ 108 DTR 201 ( All ) (HC) was set a side

S. 147:Reassessment- Transfer pricing – Permanent establishment – Income had already been disclosed by the Indian subsidiary and found by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to be at arm’s length. Reassessment was held to be bad in law .[ S. 92C, 148 ]

ITO v. TechSpan India Private Ltd( 2018)404 ITR 10/ 165 DTR 130/ 302 CTR 74/ 255 Taxman 152 .(SC) , www.itatonline.orgEditorial: Techspan India (P) Ltd v. ITO ( 2006)283 ITR 212/ 203 CTR 550(2007) 158 Taxman 182 ( Delhi) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –Change of opinion- Deduction was allowed in the original assessment, on the same facts to hold that the excess deduction was allowed will be change of opinion therefore ,reassessment was held to be bad in law . [S.10A,148 ]

Vastukar Township Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ( Jaipur)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 145:Method of accounting – Developer –Percentage completion method – Accounting Standards AS-1, AS-7 & AS-9, the Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions issued by the ICAI- Percentage of revenue recognised by the CIT(A) was held to be justified. [ S. 145(2) ]

Deepak Mittal v. ACIT ( Delhi)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 145 : Method of accounting –Where then books of account is rejected and income is estimated , separate addition u/s 40A(3), 68 or peak credit cannot be made .[ S. 68. 145(3) ]

PCIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 436 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 145: Method of accounting -Valuation of stock — Opening and closing stock to be valued on same basis [ S. 143(3) ]

CIT v. Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 577/161 DTR 435 /300 CTR 260 (Ker) (HC)

S.145: Method of accounting – Accrual — Mercantile system of accounting -Interest on fixed deposits-Interest accrued is taxable income and liable to tax as soon as it accrues .[ S.4 ,5 ]

CIT v. Mehta Construction Co. (2018) 402 ITR 281 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 144 : Best judgment assessment –Road contractor-Order passed by the CIT(A) was incomplete matter was remanded to CIT(A) for reappraisal of material on record. [ S. 145 , 145(3) ]

JCB India Limited. v. DCIT (2018) 61 ITR 148 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 143(3): Assessment – Transfer pricing —Amalgamation —On the date of passing of draft assessment order , assessee company was merged with another company hence the order was held to be not sustainable [ S. 92D ]